i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it will
be easy to adapt.

I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I do in
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it to
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any periods
in it.
Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the syntax is
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far as
adapting to a new language goes.
- Jonathan M Davis

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it

will

be easy to adapt.

I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I
do in
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it
to
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any
periods
in it.
Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the
syntax is
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far
as
adapting to a new language goes.
- Jonathan M Davis

the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
to!float("123e2") for example

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it

will

be easy to adapt.

I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I
do in
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce it
to
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any
periods
in it.
Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the
syntax is
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as far
as
adapting to a new language goes.
- Jonathan M Davis

the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
to!float("123e2") for example

I find to!float("123e2") more readable. And once again, "like it says in the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>".

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it

will

be easy to adapt.

I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I
do in
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce
it to
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any
periods
in it.
Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the
syntax is
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as
far as
adapting to a new language goes.
- Jonathan M Davis

the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
to!float("123e2") for example

the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
to!float("123e2") for example

(You probably meant »to<float>("123e2")«).
That's purely subjective (and, by the way, I don't agree with your
assertion), while there are objective downsides to using angled brackets
– they are ambiguous with the <, >, and >> operators. For example,
consider the following pieces of C++ code:
»foo<bar<16>>2>>« or just »foo<bar>>«
Do you see the ambiguity created here? D doesn't suffer from this
problem, since ! is never used as a binary operator.
David

i think it is necessary to change template syntax and do as C++ style
template A <>, and not A !(), A <>. many people come from C++ and it

will

be easy to adapt.

I came from C++, and I found it easy to adapt. Plus, like it says in
the
link Steve gave, there are technical downsides to using <>.

LOL. I use C++ in my job, but I use templates in D so much more than I
do in
C++ that I now end up using !() instead of <> unless I catch myself. I
actually ultimately much prefer !() - especially since you can reduce
it to
just ! when there's only one template argument and it doesn't have any
periods
in it.
Though honestly, if a programmer can't get used to a slightly different
syntax, then they're screwed anyway. Every language has its quirks and
differences. Syntax is a very small part of all of that. Really, the
syntax is
the _easy_ part. It's the semantics where the real problems start as
far as
adapting to a new language goes.
- Jonathan M Davis

the statement to<float("123e2")> is more easy readable then
to!float("123e2") for example

No it is not, but if you were talking about templates arguments rather
than single argument, you'd have your case.
fun!(T1, T2, ... TN)(A1, A2, ... AN);
vs
fun<T1, T2, ... TN>(A1, A2, ... AN);